The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep. This discussion has established some notability, but most of the discussion revolved around the guidelines's application rather than the subject's notability. With an inconclusive debate about how to apply the guidelines, I'm closing this discussion as no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 19:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Katz[edit]

Mikhail Katz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable William M. Connolley (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Would the nominator care to expand on his reasons for this nomination? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Not really. He just isn't notable. Is there any more to be said? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the long discussion below it looks as if there is plenty to be said. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think it's fair to expect the nominator to prove a negative, namely the absence of evidence of notability. The discussion begins when some people start offering possible evidence of notability, and others try to refute it. That's what is happening below. Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Average academic mathematician. Based on Google Scholar search, his h-index appears to be about 17 which is nothing special for a mathematics professor with tenure at a reputable research university. No evidence of notability beyond normal academic activities. Perchloric (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be valuable if you would source your data on the h index of mathematicians. Although there is general agreement that some subjects (like neurobiology) get higher cites than others (like systematic theology), there seems to be a lack of quantitative data on such issues, and judgements about notability tend to be made on the basis of past precedent. Although h index is certainly not the only factor to be considered in assessing notability (the above average professor [1]) it does have the advantage of being objective (after making allowance for subject differences, self-cites etc.) Xxanthippe (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep Perchloric is correct that the subject's citation rates, viewed as statistics alone, do not appear to rise above the level of a typical math professor with tenure at a reputable research university (say, top 50-70 worldwide). However, I feel that departs somewhat from the "average academic" rule and sets the bar too high. Researchers significant enough to be awarded tenure at research universities are those judged by their peers to be of such benefit to the profession, that they are given lifetime appointments at decent salaries for little teaching, purely on the belief that they will continue to do good research. Those who fulfill that promise in a long and fruitful career are not insignificant in their contribution to human knowledge, and they are far and away above average. Ray^Talk 05:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PROF applies I presume. You assertion that merely being tenured is enough looks to be wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My assertion is that "merely" being tenured at a top ranked research university and hundreds of citations in a low-citation field (in other words, being known and greatly respected among peers) is enough. This is quite different from your typical tenured prof at a middle level university who teaches 4 sections of 120 calculus students each per semester. Ray^Talk 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He wrote a book in a prestigious series that is cited by leading mathematicians. (Katz, Mikhail G. Systolic geometry and topology. With an appendix by Jake P. Solomon. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 137. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007. xiv+222 pp. ISBN: 978-0-8218-4177-8 MR2292367) If Mikhael Gromov finds Katz's work to be notable, then it's notable, regardless of h-indexing (where h seems to stand for hoi polloi!). This is a short article, and doesn't seem to be a vanity piece. It's less clear that the educational work is notable or need be mentioned.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at his material at Mathematical Reviews. It is obvious that he is a world-class mathematician, who is publishing regularly in leading journals like Duke, GAFA, Israel JM, etc. He seems to regularly make substantial progress on many important problems, although I didn't see anything described as a breakthrough, yet. I usually contribute to bibliographies of only members of the academy of sciences, etc., but this guy seems far better than the average academic bibliography that passes AfD. (I suggested deleting a French academic's biography a few months ago, who was far less accomplished, and somebody corrected me.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Marcel Berger in his popular article "What is... a Systole?" lists the book as one of two seminal books in systolic geometry. The author contributed a section to the widely influential book "metric structures for Riemannian and non-Riemannian spaces" (over 800 cites in google scholar). Tkuvho (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited by Tkuvho was from the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, and was in the series discussing recent clever ideas (What is ... ?). The book cited by Tkuvho was written by the aforementioned Gromov.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify the "What is...?" series does not describe recent clever ideas. It describes mathematical objects that are not typically encountered in standard set of graduate courses. To quote the AMS on the subject they say The “WHAT IS...?” column carries short (one- or two-page), nontechnical articles aimed at graduate students. Each article focuses on a single mathematical object, rather than a whole theory. The Notices welcomes feedback and suggestions for topics for future columns. Messages may be sent to notices-whatis@ams.org.

Comment Thanks for the precise quotation and citation. Nonetheless, the topics are not of historical interest, but of contemporary interest, and "clever" is a fair description of a topic that is of importance and can be described briefly.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-point: Contrary to Tkuvho, Berger's article never uses the word "seminal", which would have implied originality and influence. It just says that Katz's book "covers almost all the results and references for recent developments". Katz's book is a review; it's a textbook based on a course he taught. It has 24 citations in Google Scholar. That does not make it, or him, notable. It just means he has written a decent review that one of the experts in the field said is useful. Perchloric (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy here. In Wikipedia terms, "notable" means having been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources. The purpose of this AfD is not to determine whether the subject is a good mathematician or not. Wikipedia is not an academic promotions board. The purpose of the AfD is to determine whether the person has been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources, a rather less subjective task. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A straightforward reading of WP:PROF makes it clear that being "noted" in the sense of just being mentioned is not enough. For academics one requires significant coverage of the person themselves in reliable sources (absent in this case) or evidence of "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". So actually we need evidence that he is more than just a "good mathematician". Such evidence is also absent in this case, since the subject's citation rates are pretty typical of professors of mathematics at research universities. Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be dismissing Mikhael Gromov as a non-reliable source!?!!!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Mikhael Gromov say that Katz is notable (by the WP:PROF definition, as having made a significant impact on a broadly construed area of study)? Perchloric (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:Academic, the best case to be made for him is 1, but as a professional mathematician it is my personal opinion he has done solid work but not significant. I would go on to point out that writing a book is neither uncommon for mathematicians, the fact that having a book is not considered significant is even listed in the notes to criteria 1, and they use a mathematics book that gets reviewed on something like mathscinet as an example. He is a good mathematician, but just not especially notable. Thenub314 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy here. In Wikipedia terms, "notable" means having been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources. The purpose of this AfD is not to determine whether the subject is a "significant" mathematician or not. Wikipedia is not an academic promotions board. The purpose of the AfD is to determine whether the person has been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources, a rather less subjective task. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, fair enough, I may have misunderstood the guidelines. I have spent some time today re-examining BLP's of mathematicians trying to educate myself about as to the norm. In most cases that I looked at they seem to be able to reference some publication for facts concerning the person's career, life history, etc. See Paul Sally for an example. Most sources for the pages I glanced at were taken from some biography or a newsletter, beginning of a book, etc. Someone, somewhere had found a reason to write about the people themselves. In the case of this page I cannot find references to verify that he is a leader of his subfield, or that his university is ranked internationally as one of the top mathematics departments. These things may be true, and much more besides but what published references exist on which to build the article? Wikipedia are not supposed to be a crystal ball. To me that suggests it would make more sense to write about him when/if he has been written about elsewhere first. Otherwise we will be left discussing our views of the importance of his works, and I suspect very few are qualified to make that assessment. Thenub314 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example you give Paul Sally has a GS h index of 9, comparing like with like, less than Katz, and the personal information given seems of a minor nature (although probably not to its subject). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I am not entirely sure I am following your point. Are you sure your comparing like with like? Are citation rates really the same in Representation theory as they are in geometry? I find it notable that by this GS h-index metric Katz comes ahead of people like Jesse Douglas, Laurent Schwartz, and on par with Ngô Bảo Châu (I had to alter some characters in his name to get any hits). To me this means either as well recognized as some Fields medalists, or there is something a bit fishy with using Google scholar as a metric. Since I am fairly certain he is not on par with fields medalists the I have to say that the use of google scholar is misleading. Which is why I advocate looking for secondary sources that have written about him. If he is really notable within his community it will show up in an article somewhere and we will be free from trying to estimate his impact ourselves. My point is singling out Paul Sally is that he has appeared in many newspaper/magazine/etc articles about him, which doesn't seem to be true of Katz. Thenub314 (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thenub314, you did not misunderstand the guidelines. See my response to Xxanthippe, above.Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:Academic, being a leader in a subfield is sufficient to establish notablity (C1). Tkuvho (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Hard to even debate this article in its current shape. Did some cleanup per talk. No opinion yet. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. FWIW "M Katz" is a very common name, according to citation databases, so care must be taken to avoid false positives. WoS query "Author=(Katz MG) Refined by: Subject Areas=(MATHEMATICS OR MATHEMATICS, APPLIED) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows 17 publications, h-index=7, with ~100 total citations. I think GS is probably biased upward in this case, for example, the top hit is to an unpublished manuscript posted at arXiv, to which most of the citations seem to be from Katz himself. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Agricola44's purportedly "factual" account is not merely misleading but outright erroneous. Mathscinet gives a publication total of 45, not 17. Thus GS is off by about 200% percent. Obviously their h-factor figures are not biased upward, but rather downward. The article you claim to be an unpublished arxiv post was indeed published, see Croke, C.; Katz, M.: Universal volume bounds in Riemannian manifolds. Surveys in Differential Geometry VIII, Lectures on Geometry and Topology held in honor of Calabi, Lawson, Siu, and Uhlenbeck at Harvard University, May 3- 5, 02, edited by S.T. Yau (Somerville, MA: International Press, '03.) pp. 109 - 137. See arXiv:math.DG/0302248. Tkuvho (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. Please re-read (carefully) what I said. I did not claim that the manuscript was never published. I said the top hit was to the unpublished version and that is indeed a fact. The published paper does not appear in the top 100 hits. I do not know why GS behaves so often in such weird ways, but it is part of the reason that WP:PROF names WoS and Scopus as reliable citation indexes, but has a large paragraph of disclaimers for GS, finally calling it "a rough guide only". I checked MathSciNet and the query "Katz, Mikhail" returns 18 papers, not 45. This figure basically agrees with the results from WoS I reported above. I'm willing to be shown that perhaps there's better query that returns these other publications, that maybe he publishes under different names, or something of the like. Please report the MathSciNet query you used, so that it can quickly be checked. That would really help move the debate. At this point, it still appears that the figures of 17-18 papers, h-index around 7, and total cites of around 100, are essentially correct. I'll wait to cast a !vote until the citation statistics are recognized as being firm. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
      • Update. I found another 25 papers in MathSciNet using query "Katz, Mikhail G". That brings it closer to what you've reported above. Will double-check WoS to see if these papers are there. Still holding my !vote. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
        • Citations Statistics from WoS. The tricky part of this case, as I said above, is the commonality of the surname. I submit that the most accurate (and fair) counting of Mikhail Katz's citations is obtained from WoS using the query "Author=(katz m*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(MATHEMATICS, APPLIED OR MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY OR MATHEMATICS) AND [excluding] Authors=(KATZ, MJ) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI", which specifically excludes Matthew Katz, who also has published many papers in mathematics. The stats are: 59 papers, h-index 11, total citations ~360. Agricola44 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
          • Try http://ams.rice.edu/mathscinet/search/publications.html?pg1=IID&s1=197211 . Tkuvho (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Seems to agree with what I found above. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. The information above is valuable and shows the need to consult several databases. A search on GS with author:"Mikhail G Katz" gives 46 hits in the appropriate subject area with some 670 cites and an h index of 13. Of the hits, 14 are ArXiv papers, probably giving some double counting, and several from scientific databases like the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System which are non-journal sources independent of the subject and add notability. Not everything in GS is to be discounted. Xxanthippe (talk).

True. But even the highest numbers uncovered so far are well below any reasonable threshold of notability. Most science/math/engineering professors at research universities are well-regarded in a sufficiently narrow area of study, with some well-cited articles (50-100 citations, ballpark) to their name. That doesn't make them all notable. Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing in the article makes any claim of notability, even after people have worked on it since it was nominated. His advisor Mikhail Gromov has an article with 1358 citations, but Katz' highest is 46. The article on Systolic geometry says that it was "conceived by Charles Loewner and developed by Mikhail Gromov, Michael Freedman, Mikhail Katz, and others." Loewner's highest cited paper has 258. Freedman won a Fields Medal. Katz? Should be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 13:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • You seem to be relying on Agricola44's erroneous "facts", see above. There is nothing in WP:Academic that envisions comparisons with the advisor's influence, or with a Field's medalist's influence. By that standard, we will have to delete 99% of our biographies. On the contrary, WP:Academic specifically mentions that leadership in a subfield is a sufficient verification of notability. Tkuvho (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came to my own conclusions, thank you. If we had an article on all the professors in the world, we would indeed have to delete 99% of them for being not notable, like this guy. Abductive (reasoning) 03:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. On the last point C1 of WP:PROF says "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" (my emphasis) i.e. particularly not a narrow subfield. It also says "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", but the inline references don't do that, they simply point to his works.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. You haven't finished reading the relevant paragraph at WP:Academic. The policy paragraph points out that publication in a subfield is not sufficient proof of notability with the exception of a leader in the subfield. Tkuvho (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on basis of pass of WP:Prof#C1. Looking back on the past history of these academic AfD debates I find that many hundreds of publications are expected to pass [WP:Prof#C1]]. Subjects with h indices of less than 10 are usually found to be not notable, those with greater than 15 are usually found to be notable. The intermediate range often leads to much discussion, as in this case. However, it had several times been suggested that the citation rates in mathematics are generally lower than in other subject (I wish we had reliable data on this) and so I think that this BLP qualifies for a pass of the above average professor test. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Counter-point WP:Prof#C1 makes it clear that this article should be deleted. It reads "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." So far all that has been provided is evidence that the subject's work has been cited, but not that he has made a significant impact on the broad field he works in. If he had, there would be independent reliable sources talking about what a significant person he was, or how significant his work was. Just being cited a few hundred times is typical for any capable research mathematician, and is no indication of notability. Perchloric (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the subject in question has actually been cited a few thousand times.TR 08:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyRias, you are exaggerating. I don't think this author is that notable. At any rate, there is only one academic by that name, and all of the Google Scholar hits are by him (rather than by any namesake). Tkuvho (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Attempt to calibrate notability: I randomly selected 3 decent but not world-beating research universities (Tufts, U Wisconsin Madison, and Univ of S. California), and for each I went to their math dept website and took the first tenured professor in alphabetical order, and did a Google Scholar search. Here is what I found:
• Tufts: Bruce Boghosian. At least 3 articles with over 100 citations,at least 10 more with over 50 citations
• UWisc, Madison: Sifurd Angenent. At least 8 articles with over 100 citations, at least 5 more with over 50.
• USC: Kenneth Alexander. At least 1 article with over 100 citations, a few more with over 50.

I know this is a small sample, but I think it is fair to conclude that having a few papers with 50 to 100 citations is pretty normal for a math professor, and not a sign of notability. Perchloric (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. All three persons above would be likely to pass the above average professor test. WP:Prof finds that notability may be established by citations in the scholarly literature to the subject's work and goes into some detail about this in Note 1. If editors wish to change Wikipedia policy they should do so on the policy pages, not here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Question. Whom exactly is trying to change policy? You did research to try to find a reasonable level for the h-index to establish notability. Perchloric presented a different (and just as reasonable) analysis to support his opinion, but still based on policy. The question trying to be hashed out above is what level of citation is reasonable to justify the person have a wikipedia page. I don't see how his analysis is trying to change policy anymore then your own. Thenub314 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think it is necessary to debate this particular case within the larger context of the field of mathematics (i.e. whether maths people get more or fewer citations, on average, than those in other fields). The >350 citations (please see my analysis above) show that this person's work has been influential in the field. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep – It is a close run thing in terms of WP:PROF. In such cases I like to apply the rule of common sense. Wikipedia allows articles on bands that were one hit wonders. It has pages dedicated to a single episode of a single program. If those two kinds of articles are permissible then the lifetime's work of a better than average (although not outstanding) academic ought to be included too. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I reject the notability guideline (for reasons that would that too much time and space to write down here.) The article is reliably sourced, neutrally written, and has a decent amount of incoming links which would turn red if this article was to be deleted. Therefore it should in my opinion be kept. —Ruud 17:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* I would be curious to know your reasons for rejecting one of the key policy guidelines. But I would also note it is not reliably sourced. As I write half of the statements in it are unsourced, while much of the rest seem to be to his own works, so primary sources not reliable secondary sources. The other reasons, that it is well written and has a lot of incoming links are not relevant, especially as a lot of the links are from references, many added by M Katz himself when he was an editor here, so a lot less value than links in the article and with COI concerns.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might write an essay on this some time, but not now. One of reasons is that I see the notability guideline mostly as a pragmatic rule that had to prevent Wikipedia from becoming "skewed" in its early days. Wikipedia has now reached a size that would make this no longer and issue and safely allows us to write articles on the most obscure of subjects, as long as those are verifiable. Clearly, all inaccurate or biased statements should be removed from the article. —Ruud 08:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails the notability guidelines. He's no more special than most math profs, and hasn't made a significant contribution to his field that would make him stand out. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I moved several discussions that did not directly concern the outcome of this specific AfD to the talk page for the AfD. But since they do concern methodology for evaluating mathematicians and academics more broadly, they may still be of interest to other AfD participants; if so, please go to the talk page to see them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm not convinced of a pass of WP:PROF on the basis of absolute citation counts — yes, it's a lower citation field, but he's had plenty of time in his career to accumulate citations. I would normally find Ruud's argument about incoming links more convincing — perhaps surprisingly since it isn't one of the WP:PROF criteria, but I think that high connectivity is important to the encyclopedia. On the other hand, in order to test where those incoming links were coming from, I chose arbitrarily one of them, Hurwitz quaternion order, and found that the article had been created and edited heavily by Katz, that he was the one who added the citation to his own paper to the article, and that the citation is nowhere used within the text of the article. I don't view adding relevant self-citations to articles as a bad thing (I've done it enough times myself) but their relevance needs to be justified (which it wasn't in this case) and it makes me uncomfortable to then use the existence of such links as a basis of keeping the biography. What eventually did tip me over from delete to keep was to look, not at the citation counts, but at who the top authors in systolic geometry are. It's a little difficult because the search results for "systolic" are dominated by heart research and distributed computing, but with the more mathematical keyword combinations I tried the consistent results were that Gromov was far and away the most heavily cited, but that many of the next most cited papers after his were by Katz. So it seems he really is a leader in this sub-area, and I think it's an important enough sub-area that being a leader in it should be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware Katz added some of those links himself. This clearly weakens my argumentation somewhat. —Ruud 09:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I notice that many of the "keep" arguments above are based on ignoring WP policy.
  • Ruud says he "rejects the notability guideline", so his contribution is not really relevant.
  • FlyByNight also rejects the notability criterion and replaces it with a "better than average (although not outstanding)" criterion. This is not WP policy.
  • Agricola44 thinks that 350 citations to all Katz's papers combined makes Katz "influential", but being notable requires more than having has some influence on others in ones professional circle. My small random survey (see above) already gave evidence that hundreds of citations is typical for a tenured math professor at a mid-level research university, so Katz's rather ordinary 350 citations do not establish notability. Perchloric (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have refuted the above claim in my previous comments which, for reasons unclear to me, have been moved to the talk page of this AfD. My view is that Agricola44's findings on this matter are soundly based on policy and precedent. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Help at Larry Guth would be appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is not law and we are not judges. Wikipedia policies are mostly descriptive, not prescriptive. However this is somewhat moot as notability is a guideline, not policy. Now go and write some articles. —Ruud 11:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the deletionists here are currently ghostbusting departed quantities. Input would be appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.